Book of Moses Evidence: Enoch the "Wild Man"

After Enoch received his prophetic commission in the Book of Moses, the following details are reported concerning his preaching efforts:

And it came to pass that Enoch went forth in the land, among the people, standing upon the hills and the high places, and cried with a loud voice, testifying against their works; and all men were offended because of him. And they came forth to hear him, upon the high places, saying unto the tent-keepers: Tarry ye here and keep the tents, while we go yonder to behold the seer, for he prophesieth, and there is a strange thing in the land; a wild man hath come among us. (Moses 6:37–38)

Wild Gibborim

Because of the limited context, it is difficult to determine precisely what is meant by the phrase “wild man” in this passage. One possibility is that the label corresponds to the early conception of the gibborim (mighty ones), a term that is famously used to describe giants in Genesis 6:4. According to Brian Doak, “As human-like embodiments of that which is wild and untamed, the biblical giant [gibbor] takes on the role of ‘wild man,’ ‘freak,’ and ‘elite adversary’ for heroic displays of fighting prowess.”1

With this backdrop in mind, Jeffrey Bradshaw proposes that Enoch was given the label “wild man” in an ironically pejorative way. Nothing in the text indicates that he was an elite warrior or a brawny man, and, in fact, Enoch described himself as being “slow of speech” and “but a lad” (Moses 6:31).2 Bradshaw thus argues that Enoch was sarcastically labeled a “wild man” by his detractors precisely because he was nothing like the gibborim of his day.3

One advantage to this interpretation is that it sets up an interesting narrative inversion. Immediately after Enoch was labeled as a “wild man” the text reports that when the people heard him, “no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him” (Moses 6:39). The Book of Moses later indicates that Enoch indeed transformed from a reluctant lad into something of a prophetic military leader:

And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him. (Moses 7:13)

Like an archetypical gibbor, Enoch attained prowess in battle and was feared among his enemies. He also tamed the wild and raw power of nature itself. Mountains trembled and fled at his word, rivers turned their course, and even apex predators of the wilderness roared, apparently in distress at Enoch’s power over nature.4 Thus, if Bradshaw is correct, then the presumed joke about Enoch being the antithesis of a “wild man” was turned squarely on its head.5 The key difference, of course, is that Enoch’s power—by which he was able to overcome even the wildest of the gibborim of his day—didn’t derive from his own physical strength but was instead facilitated by God.6

Another advantage of this interpretation comes from a remarkable parallel with an early Enochic text known as the Book of Giants. Although the extant manuscripts of this text are fragmentary, they seem to portray a leader of the gibborim who laments that his opponents could not be overcome in battle:

4. […a]ll flesh, and I made war against them, but [I was] not

5. [strong enough, and] I was [not] able to prevail against them, because my adversaries

6. [are angels who] dwell [in heave]n, and they reside in holy places. vacat And [they have] not

7. [been defeated because the]y are stronger than I.     vacat

8. […]rh of the wild creature has come, and a wild man (they) call (me).7

While it appears that the “wild man” label is given to a different character in the Book of Giants than in the Book of Moses (the fragmentary nature of the text makes it difficult to be certain), it shows that this peculiar motif is at home in a very early Enochic tradition.8 The connection doesn’t stop there, though. Although the portion of the manuscript right before the mention of the “wild creature” has been challenging to translate, some scholars have offered an interpretation that is very much aligned with the Book of Moses. Bradshaw explains,

The puzzling phrase about the “wild beast” immediately follows the description of the battle. The first part of line 8 was left untranslated by Edward Cook and has proven difficult for other translators to reconstruct as well. … However, two translators, Florentino García Martínez and Józef Milik, were confident enough to make a conjecture. They understand the phrase as, respectively, “the roar of the wild beasts has come” and “the roaring of the wild beasts came.”9

If valid, these translations further strengthen Bradshaw’s thesis that the “wild man” epithet in Moses 6:38 was connected to gibborim culture. For it is precisely when Enoch (the “wild man”) exerted control over men and nature that “the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness” in Moses 7:13, just as the “roaring of wild beasts” and “wild man” phrases are paired together in connection to the defeat of the gibborim in the Book of Giants. As concluded by Bradshaw, “This phrase, placed in analogous post-battle settings in both texts, is one of the most striking and unexpected affinities between the Book of Moses Enoch story and [the Book of Giants].”10 It should also be pointed out that these details show up as part of a remarkable convergence of many parallels between these two works, which also to a “surprising degree” parallel one another in sequence.11

Wild Prophets

It is also quite plausible, however, that the description of Enoch as a “wild man” was given for other reasons. For one thing, his listeners may have viewed Enoch as something of a backwards or unsophisticated stranger or foreigner. This could explain the description of there being a “strange thing in the land” immediately before the “wild man” label (Moses 6:38).

Bradshaw suggests that Enoch being “slow of speech” (Moses 6:31) may not have been due to a speech impediment but from the possibility that, as a foreigner, he was not entirely fluent in the language of those he was teaching.12 This would be analogous to the Greek term barbarian, which originally denoted a cultural or linguistic outsider but later came to hold strong connotations of being wild or uncivilized.13 Doak explains, “In the pre-modern world, … ‘wildness’ was a very potent category, encompassing all that ‘was uncanny, unruly, raw, unpredictable, foreign, uncultured, and uncultivated. It included the unfamiliar as well as the unintelligible.’”14

At the same time, Enoch’s status as a “wild man” could be partially due to the venue of his preaching. The fact that the people had to leave their tents and “go yonder” to the “high places” in order to hear his message suggests that he may have preached in relatively remote locales. If so, he would not be dissimilar to figures such as Elijah or John the Baptist—archetypal wild prophets who had coarse clothing and lived on sparing diets in wilderness settings.15 Interestingly, some ancient traditions closely associate Enoch with these wild prophetic counterparts. As pointed out decades ago by Hugh Nibley, “the sectaries of the desert believed John the Baptist, ‘the Wild Man,’ to be the returned Enoch.”16 Nibley also noted that the prophet Elijah is “more often paired with Enoch than any other figure.”17

It may even be that Enoch was something of a prototypical wild prophet, a figure emulated by later holy men who dwelt in remote or wilderness settings. Support for this thesis comes from a statement made by Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew who lived during the time of Jesus. Specifically referencing Enoch’s being translated into heaven, Philo explained,

For this reason, it is also said that Enoch has been translated, that is, that he was removed from his home country and set out on migration from the mortal life for the immortal one.

[chapter break]

Those people just described are sages who have gone wild, crazed by the divine madness. But there are others who are companions of the tame and gentle wisdom. Piety for them is practiced differently and does not overlook human affairs. (§§38–39)18

Commenting on this passage, Michael Cover explains, “At the opening of the second chapter, Philo shifts his focus away from the company of sages wildly possessed by God—entirely pleasing to him, but rare upon the earth, such as Enoch—toward a more cultivated and common kind of sage, possessed of reason and typified by Abraham.”19 Cover further explains that “Enoch and Abraham are said to be ‘devotees’ (ἑταῖροι) of two kinds of wisdom, the wilder and the gentler.”20

Philo’s description is significant because, unlike the passage in the Book of Giants, he directly associates Enoch himself with a class of wild prophets or sages. The fact that Philo connects Enoch’s wildness with his heavenly ascent is also fascinating. This is because a similar association immediately follows Enoch’s description as a wild man in the Book of Moses: “and there is a strange thing in the land; a wild man hath come among us. And it came to pass when they heard him, no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him; for he walked with God” (Moses 6:39).

Thus, the label “wild man” in the Book of Moses may, at least in part, be attributed to Enoch’s status as an otherworldly traveler, one whose “divine madness” (which, in Philo’s vernacular, meant something along the lines of “ecstatic piety”) was sufficient for God to extract him from the mortal realm and situate him in a heavenly abode—a place truly alien to earthly sojourners.21 Enoch being “clothed upon with glory” (Moses 7:3) may also have played a role in the perception of him being a “strange thing” in the land (Moses 6:38).22 An analogous idea turns up in ancient texts in regard to Moses, whose transfiguration appears to have rendered him as a quasi-stranger among his own people.23 An even more striking parallel is present in the story of Abinadi, who was judged to be “mad” by Noah and his priests (Mosiah 13:4).24

Finally, it could simply be that the people felt that the message preached by Enoch was strange, far-fetched, or unbelievable. He may have come across as being deranged or demented, a man filled with wild delusions and untenable prophecies. This wouldn’t be dissimilar to the way that Noah’s detractors viewed him in the Sibylline Oracles: “When they heard him they sneered at him, each one, calling him demented, a man gone mad.”25

Conclusion

With all of these details in mind, there may be a number of reasons that Enoch was called a “wild man” in the Book of Moses. Enoch was perhaps given this label due to his status as a foreigner, or because he preached a strange prophetic message, or because he preached in remote wilderness settings, or because of his extraordinary visions, or because he claimed to tour the heavens and walk with God. Or he may have been sarcastically called a “wild man” because he seemingly didn’t measure up to the ideal gibborim of his day, leading to a notable narrative inversion. Importantly, these potential explanations should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. It may be that Enoch was labeled as a “wild man” for several of these reasons simultaneously.26

Whatever the case may be, it is significant that Enoch’s status as a “wild man” aligns well with ancient traditions which Joseph Smith almost certainly knew nothing about. The Book of Giants, for instance, wasn’t discovered or translated until the mid-20th century. It is virtually impossible that Smith could have known that the specific phrase “wild man” was used in that early Enochic text, much less that it was paired with the phrase “wild beast”—and perhaps even the “roaring of wild beasts”—in a post-battle context, in connection with gibborim culture and Moses 7:13. Nor does it seem reasonable to suppose that Joseph Smith had access to an English version of Philo’s On the Change of Names. Before Philo’s complete works were translated into English by Charles Yonge in 1854, his writings were only available in Latin or Greek, languages that would not have been readable to Joseph Smith in 1830.27

Traditions connecting Enoch to Elijah and John the Baptist are likewise obscure, and these relationships are more tangential anyways.28 It is possible that Smith may have noticed parallels between Enoch and Elijah in scripture itself or in biblical commentaries, due to these figures both being taken up to heaven. But there is nothing in the Bible that suggests Enoch was a wild prophet in the way that Elijah and John the Baptist were. As stated by Bradshaw concerning Moses 6:38, “The rare term ‘wild man’ fairly pops out at the reader. It is used only once elsewhere in scripture, as part of Jacob’s prophecy about how Ishmael will live to become everyone’s favorite enemy (Genesis 16:12). Such a label hardly feels appropriate for Enoch.”29

Nevertheless, ancient sources affirm that Enoch was indeed seen as a wild prophet and that the phrase “wild man” is at home in one of the earliest Enochic traditions. These remarkable parallels add to a growing list of elements in the Book of Moses which have surprising corroboration in the ancient world, supporting Joseph Smith’s status as a prophet and the genuine antiquity of his revelations.30